On Oct 7, 2004, at 8:30 PM, jm Haefner wrote:

> I don't know how far that discussion will go without sounding pedantic
>

On Oct 7, 2004, at 7:15 PM, ryan griffis wrote:

> very interesting, if seemingly-not-getting-anywhere, discussion. is
> there any other kind? ;)

Heh, indeed. I'm quickly reaching a point where I've said what I want
to say, and RAW can do with it what it will. I'm not really cut out for
criticism. Makes me anxious to get back to work. :) It's been
enjoyable, though!

> in terms of the FF aesthetic that's being bandied about, i was just
> thinking that it's very strange to suggest that it has nothing to
> offer. Certainly it represents some aspect of a larger social
> imaginary that can be mined critically for all kinds of things in
> terms of the politics of aesthetics and desire.

That's a vGood point -- I have been taking the approach of critiquing
the work itself, but perhaps a more productive approach would be to
critique the broader cultural phenomenon.

> This may be the kind of criticism that many here despise (seems like i
> got into this with curt at some point? maybe not.), but it's what i'm
> interested in and find important.

If we do get into critiquing the broader phenomenon, this will get
messy, because as I mentioned before, it seems to be a massive ThumbsUp
to the statusQuo, and as you mention, engages the politics of desire --
and more specifically in my opinion, demonstrates a slavish
entrancement with the sumptuousness of consumption and eCommerce. To my
eyes, it reads as anything but critical to these forces and utterly
complicit in the suffering they inflict.

- ben

On Oct 7, 2004, at 6:47 PM, Pall Thayer wrote:

> I wonder how many years after Seurat's death this interpretation
> appeared. Is this what the contemporary art world of Seurat's time
> said about his art?

Who cares what the contemporary art world circa Seurat said about his
work? I think it's pretty clear that he himself had these ideas in
mind, and it's very difficult to look at his work today and not see
this sociallyRadical perspective.

> Do you truly think that Seurat's "socially radical concepts,
> addressing Science and Progress as oppressive" are what makes his work
> important today?

I'm sure if you look at Seurat's contemporaries, they understood his
work as addressing science, and clearly his work became important
because it was both pretty and very different. Maybe the audiences of
the day didn't connect the visual style to the politics of the work
(and maybe Seurat didn't, at least consciously -- I'm not Seurat
scholar), but there is an obvious connexion...

Today is another issue. I'm confident that audiences today like
Impressionism because it's "pretty." I can guarantee that audiences in
the early impressionist era thought the work was anything but pretty.

>> Perspective was a ground-shakingly radical idea at one point.
>>
> It was? Hmm... I could have sworn that it was a technical trick, just
> like taking bits of data and presenting them as an image.

It was a technical trick that sent shock waves through the art world
and utterly astonished viewers. If you can say the same thing for
FlashFormalism with a straight face, then we'll begin a debate about
the relative impact they had. I'm not saying method can't be powerful
-- I'm saying that the method in FlashFormalism isn't.

> You may have glanced at a few projects but I don't think you get it,
> in the same way that the critics of the mid-nineteenth century didn't
> bother to *examine* the work of the Impressionists and therefore,
> didn't get it.

Maybe you're right! Maybe between the 11 years I've been browsing the
web, the 10 years that I've been creating on it and the years I spent
studying newMedia at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago, I just
haven't managed to see enough newMedia projects to even talk about it!
Man, I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time. This whole "looking at work
before critiquing it" thing is new to me.

I've seen gigs of this bullShizer! I was bored with FlashFormalism in
1999, and I'm bored with it now -- in five years, it has not progressed
in any discernible way. There's the smell of death wafting over it, and
the inability for its community to accept criticism is the rigor
mortis.

> ps. I agree with Rob, this is the best thread Rhizome has seen in a
> long time. As far as your goal of generating critical discussion goes,
> this is a huge success

Hooray!

>> And someone with herpes isn't always contagious.
> What kind of reasoning is that? So, uh... all graphic design education
> *is* bad because someone with herpes isn't always contagious?

I'm trying to say that terrible pedagogy and methodology has infected
graphicDsign much like Herpes Simplex Virus. It is possible to have
intercourse with the field of graphicDsign and not become infected, but
your risk is much greater without criticalProtection, particularly
during a formalistOutbreak. And much like Herpes, the corruption of
graphicDsign is spreading at epidemical rates.

What, that analogy wasn't clear? :)

- ben

On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:30 PM, jm Haefner wrote:

> Are you suggesting that design is a natural talent?

Uhh, no.

> That critical, historical, contextual discussion doesn't happen in an
> academic environment in graphic design? That concept is not an issue
> in this type of curriculum? This seems a bit biased or naive.

I'm biased by experience -- they don't happen enough. If you have any
doubts, walk into a graphic design firm and ask the interns who they're
reading or why they want to design.

> Obviously, they are not going to be masters without experience, but
> then there doesn't seem to be a demand or pay for "masters."

Mastery is an illusion.

> The conversation is there, but I don't think you are listening.

Oh? <crickets chirping> There's plenty of critical discourse about
newMedia happening, it's just not taking place on this list. It should.

> The silence that you hear is everyone wondering why you don't know
> -based on your statements- that not EVERY Flash piece is intended to
> be purely -> pretty, and if it conveys meaning/intent/criticality and
> it's ALSO pretty...hummm maybe that can be discussed as part of a
> built-in generics (like word processing software that only knows X
> number of words)...and not necessarily an insipid artist.

I have no issue with pretty work that has brains. My issue is with the
glut of pretty work with nothing to say. Which is not to say that I
don't like it -- some of it is nice as a diversion, much like reading
Wallpaper, ArtForum, or watching trashTV. I just think it's weird how
little it's challenged, particularly when I see a lot of work being
posted that's critical in other ways....

> >Read more closely -- I'm not trying to import newMedia into the
> >"pre-existent" criticalModels used in contempArt
>
> ++++
>
> > There are so many discussions that
> >have been woven together to form newMedia, and now you want to pretend
> >not to see them and start over with new language.
>
> Can we say ...flip flop?

HA! Speaking of importing language from suspect sources, you just did a
File>Import on the Republican propaganda machine... If you would, as I
mentioned, read more closely, you'll see I have no interest in adhering
to the conventional critical models (models being ways of understanding
hystory), but rather would like to connect newMedia to the many
hystorical superStrings from which it is woven. Some of these myriad
parallel hystories are not commonly [recognized by/incorporated into]
the contempArt system && narrative. What I'm suggesting is that we
recognize these threads && understand their discussions, as they are
deeply influential && formative to the current context of newMedia.

> I keep running into an old argument that in order art to be accepted
> as art it needs to be engaging on some level and that it is successful
> if it is understood.

You can never "understand" anyone or anything -- it's such a final
word. You can only hope to spark debate, open discussion, shock
someone, confuse someone, delight someone.

> It's that abstractness that IS engaging.

Really? If I can ask in my most sincere and un-confrontational voice,
what exactly is it about it that is engaging? Is it a visceral thing?
What are the feelings you go through as you view it? Is it some kind of
rush, or maybe a soothing calm? I'm most curious to know.

> AND another one...if the concept has to be explained or it's not
> understood, then it doesn't fit the criteria as successful either.

Nah, there's too much work out there that leans on a concept too
heavily to the detriment of the work. You run into problems when you
start blaming your audience for not "understanding" your work. However,
if your audience flat-out doesn't care about your work....

> I do have a bias about that for sure...so I might not be remotely
> interested in a work that captures other people's work, generates
> multiple images, or creates an online "society," but you can still
> tell me why you "like" it, and I won't shut you down.

I'm not shutting anyone down -- people just seem to be pretty irked by
my questions about why there isn't more critical discussion about
FlashFormalism here. I'm all for MORE discussion.

> OH, and want your Web site redesigned?

Nah, I like the suspense. Besides, I've got a few sites I have to get
operational first. I'll be sure to post the links!

- ben

On Oct 7, 2004, at 5:25 PM, Rob Myers wrote:

> It isn't vacuous prettiness because it is realistic. It is descriptive
> of contemporary experience. That experience is aesthetic and systemic,
> yet chaotic for the individual.

Oh really? Because that sounds like a cop-out of morbidly obese
proportions to me. Either that or I'm missing out on "contemporary
experience." My experience is nowhere near that aesthetically dazzling
or dissociated. Is this experience something you need a $6000/month
[live/work] loft in Manhattan and a steady diet of cocaine to
understand? Because looking at the work, I don't get anything out of
it.

> This is not an age where it's possible to paint on ceilings or floors.

???

> An obviously acute social commentary or deconstructive narrative would
> not be realistic. It would be a fantasy of critical engagement and
> import, a mere illustration or placebo.

What a bitterlyCyncial notion: don't bother even saying anything,
because it doesn't matter and it won't change anything? Say that to
Michael Moore's face. Say it to Picasso. Say it to any artist who has
seen the impact their work has had. I'd say with the net, the
possibilities for critical engagement and import are multiplied -- look
at how much of an impact bloggers are having in this election. Sure,
that's a political example, but it shows you the power of your chosen
medium, no matter how willing you are to make excuses for not engaging
it.

> Possibly that's because the discourse is happening within the work.

Really? I'm squinting now. Is it too small to read or something?
Because as I mentioned before, the work isn't having any discussion
that involves me.

> However the examples you give and the language you use indicates
> certain pre-existent (and commonly held) ideas about what to be
> critical/challenging/progressive is. That is, the challenge must be
> one we can join, rather than one directed at us, and must be
> renderable in language.

No -- forget language. If you can intrigue me without language, go for
it. FlashFormalism does not intrigue me. You seem to think that it
doesn't matter. "Not intrigued? Not challenged? Who cares! Art has many
purposes! Plus, there's a hidden discourse in the work you can't see!
No, don't worry about what that discourse is!" I'm being an ass, but
seriously: what is the point of this list if not to move the discussion
of newMedia forward? And if follows, that if that is indeed the purpose
of the list, how can we do that if we can't engage with the work? And
if we can't engage with the work, is it because we don't understand it,
or that it isn't of interest? And how can we even begin to understand
the work if some of us are unwilling to look at it critically?

> Beware of confusing the discourse around the work with the discourse
> in the work (the discourse of the work).

Sure, art is intimately intertwined with the discussion surrounding it.
In fact, artWorks [can/do] further this discussion, just as the
discussion bears the fruit of artWorks. It's a living system. The
problem comes when the discussion stops moving. Then the artWork has no
lifeSupport.

> It's very relevant because it is exactly the kind of socially engaged
> formalism that it is important not to be aspect-blind to in FF.

The earlyVideo moment was a time when, for the first time ever, artists
had access to the tools of television production. In an already radical
time, video became a weaponLike tool for shortCircuiting expectations.
The very idea of seeing alternative media on a television screen was
challenging, and spawned a vigorous intellectual debate. Most of the
work was not formalist, although some of it indeed was. The formalist
work of the time tended to be steeped in the ideas of
consciousnessExpansion as outlined by geneYoungblood in Expanded Cinema
and hands-on lectures, R. Buckminster Fuller in various texts and
lectures, and others. In this way, the formalist work of that
hystorical timeond was among the most conceptual. It's also important
to note that at the time, there were no off-the-shelf tools for
abstractVisual creation -- there was no equivalent to Flash. So artists
(like danSandin, philMorton, davidBeck, georgeBrown,
paikNamJune/shuyaAbe, steveRutt/billEtra and others) had to build their
own tools, and the output and operation of each idiosyncratic tool was
totally different.

This is in stark contrast to the endless waves of clickable transparent
cubes and lines that spring forth from Macromedia Flash plug-ins. If
you can show me how FlashFormalism connects to the hyperthread of
cybernetics, I'd love to see it. Or, if you can simply show me
satisfactorily how FlashFormalism is "socially engaged," I'd love to
see that.

> Which is great, but slots very easily into the academic/commercial
> artworld. It's engages in existing discussions rather than revealing
> gaps in the language of that discussion.

The appropriate response to gaps in the road is to fill them and keep
the discussion rolling, not to tear down the whole bridge and
disconnect the shores. (Boy, that was a metaphorFull!)

> I'm not suggesting we cast off history, far from it. I'm suggesting
> that we look at history to recover a current of resistance to the
> unreflective textual formalism of a criticism that FF is obviously
> anathema to.

What a masterful turnabout on the fact that it is FlashFormalism, not
critical discourse, which is unreflective.

- ben